Democrat Doug Jones defeated Republican Roy Moore by a narrow margin in a Senate special election in Alabama on Tuesday night. Jones won 49.9 percent of the votecompared to Moore’s 48.4 percent, a stunning result in a traditionally deeply Republican state.

The surprise result showed the growing power of recentsexual misconduct allegations. Moore had been accused by multiple women of sexual assault, with some saying he pursued them when they were teenagers. The result was also a major blow to President Donald Trump, who had urged Alabama voters to support Moore. Jones’s victorymeans Republican senators now have just a one-seat majority, which could have significant consequences for the party’s legislative agenda.

Jones, a former prosecutor, is the first Democrat elected to the Senate from Alabama since 1992. He will occupy the seat formerly held by Jeff Sessions, who was named attorney general in February. After Jones was declared the winner, Moore refused to concede the race, asking supporters to “wait on God and let this process play out.”

Chris:

It was fascinating to watch this on TV! The voting results were coming in every few minutes and until the very end, and it was impossible to know who would win the race. Wow! Jessica, what would you say had the biggest impact on the outcome of the election?

Jessica:

The “MeToo” movement!

Chris:

That was definitely a factor.

Jessica:

57 percent of women voted for Jones -- which is a lot in such a traditionally Republican state.

Chris:

It doesn’t surprise me. Women should feel outraged by the sexual misconduct of the Republican candidate.

Jessica:

Yes, and there were other things that outraged women, men, whites, blacks, Jews, Muslims…

Chris:

…in short, pretty much everyone?

Jessica:

Yes, pretty much everyone. And how couldn’t you be? For example, Roy Moore once said it would "eliminate many problems" if the US got rid of every constitutional amendment after the first ten. The amendments include ones that abolished slavery and allowed black people and women to vote.

Chris:

I can add few more! How about this: “9/11 may have happened ‘because we’ve distanced ourselves from God,” or “'My personal belief' is that Obama wasn’t born in America.” He also called Islam a “false religion,” and he said that homosexual conduct “should be illegal.”

Featured Topic

This is the topic we suggest you practice in the
Speaking Studio this week, but of course you can role
play or discuss any of the stories on our program.

The French governmentannounced on Sunday that it will ban mobile phone use in schools for students ages 15 and younger. The ban, which president Emmanuel Macron proposedduring his campaign earlier this year, will take effectnext September.

Under the new rule, children will be allowed to bring their phones to school, but will not be able to use them at any time until they leave, even during breaks. Though the use of mobile phones is already forbidden in classrooms, some teachers say that students use them anyway. French Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer called the matter a public health issue, saying that “children don’t play at break time anymore. They are just all in front of their smartphones, and from an educational point of view, that’s a problem.”

The number of French teenagers carryingcell phones has risen sharply in recent years. According to the French newspaper Le Monde, more than 8 in 10 carried smartphones in 2015, compared with 2 in 10 in 2011. Many students begin carrying phones at age 9, when they start going to school alone.

Chris:

Jessica, I don’t understand how this ban could possibly work. What if parents need to get in touch with their kids?

Jessica:

They could call the school.

Chris:

But how will this ban work? Where will students keep their phones while they’re at school? And what if...

Jessica:

You’ve made your point -- there are things that need to be figured out. But that doesn’t mean schools shouldn’t try. There’s research from England that shows that test scoresimproved in four cities after mobile phones were banned in schools. Also, low-achieving and low-income kids showed the biggest improvement.

Chris:

OK, let me respond to that with another example. In 2006, New York City tried banning phones in schools -- but they reversed the ban because it didn’t work. It wasn’t enforcedconsistently at different schools, and of course, parents complained...

Jessica:

That ban was implemented more than 10 years ago. Things were probably different then.

Chris:

Exactly!

Jessica:

Today, practically all kids have smartphones. They use them to check Facebookduring class, or even to find the answers to questions on tests. It’s not unreasonable to try to stop this.

Chris:

But a ban isn’t the answer. It would be better to teach kids how to use their phones responsibly. I realize that’s not easy -- but when something is forbidden, there is almost always a backlash.

The Chicago Board Options Exchange began trading futures in the digital currencybitcoin on Sunday. The move will subject part of the market for the currency to federal regulation, and it will open up bitcoin trading to a larger group of investors.

Bitcoin’s price has soaredon private exchangesrecently, surpassing $18,000 on some exchanges last week. At the start of 2017, the price of bitcoin was less than $1,000. The rise in valuehas been fueled by several factors, including growing interest from Wall Street firms and private investors, particularly in Japan and South Korea. Yet some experts warn that the currency is too unstable, and that its price will eventuallycrash.

With the start of futures trading, investors will be able to bet on future bitcoin price swings. On its first day of trading, bitcoin futures rose from $15,000 to over $18,000. A second major exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, will launch bitcoin futures trading next Monday, while the New York-based Nasdaq is expected to start early next year.

Chris:

This would have been impossible to predict a few years ago, Jessica. Wow! Things are developing rapidly! This could be the beginning of a huge change.

It only seems strange because it’s an entirely new way of paying for things. But it’s built on pretty impressive technology, and there are some big advantages....

Jessica:

Like what?

Chris:

Well, there’s no bank or government that intermediates transactions. That means transaction fees are lower than if you were to buy something by, say, credit card. It also means that transactions happen fast, even if you’re buying something from the other side of the world.

Jessica:

Don’t people use bitcoin to buy things illegally, because the transactions are anonymous?

Chris:

Yes -- but that doesn’t mean that only criminals use it! If you think about it, there’s no need to have your name linked to your online transactions. But all the transactions are kept in a public log, so you know the transactions are legitimate.

Jessica:

Hmm. It still sounds like a fad to me... and like a financial bubble!

Chris:

It may be -- it’s impossible to predict what will happen. But one thing is for certain: this is the start of something completely new.

French rock legend Johnny Hallyday died last Wednesday at age 74. Beloved in his native country, but largely unknownoutside of the French-speaking world, Hallyday sold more than 100 million records, acted in more than 30 films, and appeared on more than 2,100 magazine covers. Hallyday had announced in March that he had lung cancer.

Born Jean-Philippe Smet, he was raised by his aunt among cabaret entertainers. He began performingas a teenager, taking the name “Hallyday” from an American relative. Heavily influenced by Elvis Presley and 1950s rock and roll, he is credited with introducing this style of music to France. He toured with Jimi Hendrix in France in 1966, and counted Mick Jagger, John Lennon, and Rod Stewart among his friends.

Last Saturday, around 1 million people lined the route of the funeral procession in Paris. French president Emmanuel Macron, a Hallyday fan, said to the crowd: “You are here for him, for Johnny Hallyday. After 60 years of career, 1,000 songs, 50 albums … you are still there, still there, always there.”

Chris:

Wow -- Johnny Hallyday was HUGE in France! The name sounded familiar to me, but I didn’t know anything about him.

Jessica:

Most Americans don’t, Chris. Some people actually call him ‘the biggest rock star you've never heard of.’ It’s kind of strange, because he was so influenced by Elvis Presley and American rock music.

Chris:

Strange… But we already had Elvis, so maybe we didn’t need another one. Plus, Johnny Hallyday’s songs were in French, right?

Jessica:

Yes, those are good points. But even when he released an album in English a few years ago, it was only released in French-speaking countries. It’s sad, because he really loved the United States.

Chris:

Well, he was obviouslyadored in France! To have introduced a new style of music to an entire country -- that’s a huge achievement, right?

Jessica:

Of course. And music wasn’t his only talent. He was also an accomplished actor. His later movies, in particular, received critical praise.

Chris:

What kind of movies were they? Romance? Action? Horror?

Jessica:

Various genres, I think. One that was popular around 15 years ago was called “Man on the Train.”

Chris:

“Man on the Train” -- that sounds familiar! I’m going to look for it. I’m curious to know more about this Johnny Hallyday...

Whenever I travel to Europe, I am reminded of the unique bond this beautiful, old continent has with the US.

Jessica:

What do you mean? How we helped to defeat the evil, German Nazis in the long and horribleWorld War II? Or that we aligned with Western Europeagainst the influence of the advancing, communistSoviet Union in the 20th century?

Chris:

Both, for sure. But I’m actually thinking about the Marshall Plan.

Jessica:

Yeah, that was something. There’s no tellinghow much longer it would have takenvulnerable, war-ravaged Europe to recover economically from WWII without the financial support of the US. The United States dished outover $13 billion in a 4-year period beginning in 1948.

Chris:

That’s over $140 billion dollars in today’s money. That is an incomprehensiblylargeamount to transfer away from the Americanpopulation. Is it true that most of these funds went to the biggest countries in Europe?

Jessica:

Yes. It was thought at the time, that the bigger European countries, would, with the help of the Marshall Plan, then stimulate economic growth in the smaller European countries as well. The funds were distributedmostlyon a per-capita basis. As you might expect, the allied European nations got a little more than the old axis countries.

Chris:

Obviously. It was generous that an old, formerly hostile country like Germany received anything at allconsidering that they were the cause of the whole horribledestruction of WWII.

Jessica:

Germany got about 11% of the funds. France collected 18%. The biggest winner was our oldest and longest ally in the world, the UK. Overall, 18 countries received funds.

Chris:

What really gets me is that Harry Truman, who was a Democrat, was able to pass this bill with bipartisan support from the Republican congress.

Jessica:

The Second World War had demonstratedwithout a doubt what happens when the United States leans towards isolationism, like it did in the 1930s. Truly bad things happen.

Chris:

Good point. I also think there was a powerful realization that a modern, prosperous Europe was not only good for Europe, it was good for the United States, too…

Jessica:

And for the entire western world!

Chris:

Yeah, that’s how economics works.

Jessica:

Exactly. But it worked politically as well. The Marshall Plan aid allowedimpoverishedWestern European nations to relax austerity measures and rationing, reducing discontent and bringing political stability, which was vital. And it also bought the United States enormous political goodwill that has lasted to this day.

Chris:

So, after the Second World War, we had bipartisanship, global thinking, a belief in free trade and none of that “my country first” stuff.

Jessica:

It almost seems like a fairytalecompared to these days.

Chris:

Let’s not forget the man for whom the plan was named. The Marshall Plan was named after the intelligent and respected George Marshall who was Truman’s Secretary of State. The idea was to modernize industry, to remove trade barriers and to rain a little bit on the parade of the Soviet Union by preventing the spread of communism.

Jessica:

The Soviet Union was offered to be a recipient of the Marshall Plan but, obviously, it was on its own, Stalinistwar path and naturallyblocked help for countries such as East Germany and Poland, as well.

Chris:

Thankfully, on this occasion, the United States was on the right side of history.

When using two or more adjective before a noun, the adjectives must be placed in a certain order. The order depends on the function of the adjective. For instance, adjectives that describe size, such as large, are placed before color, such as red.

He drove a large, red truck. ✔ Correct
He drove a red, large truck. ✘ Not correct

We can divide adjectives into the nine following categories:

Order

Relating to

Example

1

quantity

two, three, several, many

2

value or opinion

incredible, amazing

3

size

big, tiny, large, long

4

temperature

hot, cold

5

age

new, old, ten-year-old

6

shape

round, square, circular

7

color

red, tan, green

8

origin

American, Japanese, Victorian

9

material

silver, cloth, tile

I rented an amazing, new apartment downtown. ✔ Correct
‘Amazing’ is an adjective describing opinion (2). ‘New’ is an adjective describing age (5).

I rented a new, amazing apartment downtown. ✘ Not correct
‘Amazing’ must precede ‘new’ because its order is higher.

Our house has a large, rectangular backyard. ✔ Correct
‘Large’ is an adjective describing size (3). ‘Rectangular’ is an adjective describing shape (6).

Our house has a rectangular, large backyard. ✘ Not correct
‘Large’ must precede ‘rectangular’ because its order is higher.

Jessica, how do you feel aboutcelebrities who get involved in political and social activism?

Jessica:

I think some of my feelings might surprise you! On one hand, it can be seen as admirable when a movie star or a famous athleteputs their heart and soul into a noble cause, like improving living conditions for people in developing countries, helping victims of natural disasters, increasing the access to education, fighting hunger, etc. But, on the other hand, does their celebrity status really help the cause?

Chris:

A political cause or a social cause?

Jessica:

I highly doubt that celebrities have much impact on political causes.

Chris:

Why not?

Jessica:

Why not? Compare Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s celebrity endorsements during the 2016 presidential election! Clinton clearly had the significant advantage, not only in the number but in the quality of public figures who endorsed her. Clinton was endorsed by stars like Meryl Streep, Shailene Woodley, Drew Barrymore, Viola Davis, Lena Dunham, George Clooney, Ben Affleck, Leonardo DiCaprio, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hanks… I could go on and on! I am sure these celebrities put their heart and soul intoencouraging Americans to engage with political issues and vote for Clinton. …. well? We know how it ended, don’t we? I think this is solid proof that celebrities’ political activism is just a drop in the bucket …at least in our country.

Chris:

I think you’re jumping to a conclusion here. Even if celebrity activism brings only a small amount of additional attention to a political cause, it’s better than nothing at all! Whether it’s Meryl Streep accepting her lifetime achievement award at the 74thAnnual Golden Globe Awards and putting her heart and soul into her acceptance speech to denounce Trump’s bigotry, or Scarlett Johansson and Amy Poehler attending the Women’s March on Washington, these public displayscontribute to the larger picture.

Jessica:

They can put their heart and soul into it, and still not be effective. That’s what I’m questioning here. Not the intention, but the results.

Chris:

OK, do you have the same opinion about celebrities and social activism?

Jessica:

Hmm… I don’t want to sound too cynical, but I sometimes question the motives of celebrities who are engaged in humanitarian causes. Take George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, or Matt Damon for example. Their social activism provides them with access to political talk shows and international forums.

Chris:

So?

Jessica:

And, well, they use those appearances to polish their personal brands. It’s self-serving.

Chris:

Oh, come on! I do think it’s admirable when people who attract large audiencesput their heart and soul into a social cause. They are setting a good example for their fans!

Jessica:

And you think it’s effective?

Chris:

Sure! In many ways! Activism can be effective in achieving political and social change, but what’s more important is solidarity with other citizens.

Jessica:

Solidarity?

Chris:

Yes! Solidarity – The activism of film stars is a display of solidarity. It shows that despite their elevated public image, they are citizens themselves with personal political beliefs, and have as much of a right to represent those interests as anyone. This is how the American system works and how it can improve.

Jessica:

Really? Because of celebrity activism?

Chris:

No, because of citizen participation! And if celebrity activism encourages citizen activism, then it has to be a good thing!

Things can be done with varying degrees of effort. If you have little interest in what you are doing and put in a minimum of effort, the result will probably reflect that. If, on the other hand, you approach a taskwith a great deal of energy and enthusiasm, and you invest a maximum amount of effort, then you can say that you put your heart and soul into it. Effort is the essence of this idiom. When we say that someone has put their heart and soul into something, we mean that they have made a great effort.

The phrase can be used to talk about ongoing projects or single events. It most often implies that the person who puts their heart and soul into somethingcares a great deal for the process and the outcome. So in addition to the physical effort, which is time, energy, and resources used, there is also an emotional or psychological component. In other words, putting your heart and soul into something also suggests great determination, passion, and conviction.

As for the exact origin of this expression, it is unclear when or how it became so commonly used, but some of the earliestrecorded uses date back to the late 1700s. It is probably much older though and has evolvedcolloquiallyover time as many phrases do.

Example 1:

That vintage car is his passion project. He has put his heart and soul intorestoring it.

Example 2:

We have never doubted your ability to accomplish anything, because you have always put your heart and soul into everything you do.

Example 3:

I put my heart and soul into this bakery. It is heartbreaking to see it close down.

Let's practice pronunciation on few short phrases from today's episode.
Listen carefully how the native speaker pronounces each sentence.
Follow the intonations in each sentence. When you are ready, record one
paragraph at a time with your own voice and then compare
your pronunciation and intonations to the native speaker's: